A study on the precautionary principle by using interest approach in the negotiations of the Montreal Protocol focusing on the international environmental governance and law.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The international environmental governance and law scholars suggested that interest approach might influence in the early negotiations of creating Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs). Moreover the existence of interest approach would lead for international environmental collaborations by promoting the precautionary principle, subsequently influence in the early negotiations of creating MEAs, which include the Montreal Protocol. The Montreal Protocol has managed to seek international environmental collaboration among almost all of the nations in the world, which made the Montreal Protocol become a successful one. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to explain the influence of interest approach that promotes the precautionary principle in the international environmental governance and law on regards of the Montreal Protocol’s early negotiations and the relations of the interstates participation response. Meanwhile, the methods of this study are based on qualitative set up, which is based on the meetings’ proceeding reports of the Montreal Protocol. Finally, the results potentially provide with better understanding of the influence of interest approach in promoting the precautionary principle in order to lead for further development and expansion of the rules on international environmental governance and law for achieving the global environmental protection goals.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".